rangersac wrote:And Oprah is making it easy for him. Hasn't pressed him about lying under oath when she's shown video of him doing just that, hasn't pressed him on Ferrari, hasn't pressed him on Hamilton. Hope there's something more than the currency of shame on tomorrow's episode.

There'll be the proper setting for those. It's much more sensible to keep the interview flowing and to allow all to understand more. Over stressing the interviewee and leading to a walk out benefits no one. In any case, the interview is not even half way shown yet. More to come.

sogood wrote: There'll be the proper setting for those. It's much more sensible to keep the interview flowing and to allow all to understand more. Over stressing the interviewee and leading to a walk out benefits no one. In any case, the interview is not even half way shown yet. More to come.

Agreed, we'll see what happens tomorrow. Fair point on keeping the interview going to understand more, however for mine, a good interviewer should be able to recognize when their subject is working towards a clearly scripted narrative and do their best to subtly disrupt that. In this case the interview was always going to be massively prepared because of the legal minefield that has to be navigated. Can you imagine a Kerry O'Brien type letting some of these responses through to the keeper?

AndyRevill wrote:I think they've worked out a plan. Make an admission - first part to redemption - but refuse to implicate anyone else - this is the carrot for a deal to go back under oath tell all and avoid jail

It's all so logical in terms of how he and his team is approaching this. Even with dope, he cannot not be a tough fighter to "win" TdF. Intrinsically a fighter he is. Fair enough. What's going to be really interesting for me will be how he is going to present his long term partner Johan Bruyneel?

Happy for comments and feedback on this. As suggested it is satisfying to finally having a confession however there are so many incidents which are being avoided. Oprah (& team) have done her homework and are asking about a number of the topics however as he isn't being grilled on these, when the topic is avoided then it is essentially unanswered. While Oprah is talkshow, she is certainly verging on many of these questions.

Can't believe the smirks and jokes by Lance Armstrong at the bullying (ie. "fat" joke) certainly not a time for arrogance, perhaps humility considering the people who have been let down, hurt and disadvantaged.

He would be the first to the door... except also said that if it wasn't for the USADA case he wouldn't be sitting with Oprah.... and indicated that it is because of the comeback and subsequent case that e is confessing. What does this tell you about the character?

Christopher Jones wrote:So is Lance Armstrong worthy of forgiveness if he confesses? No, not at this stage. It doesn’t seem like this is a confession “because it is the right thing to do”. What the confession however does do is create a sense of closure, confirmation that it wasn’t a witch-hunt after all.

azzurribike wrote:Does that mean he was not given the same chance to come clean as Hincapie etc were?

That's not an unreasonable interpretation. Like all good sting ops, the aim is to catch that one big fish. And in this, LA is the big fish. USADA like all other organisation knows full well that dope is everywhere in cycling and catching small fries will only cause ripples and it's the big fishes that'll empty the tank.

azzurribike wrote:Not a lance fan, but I'm curious about his statement that "he would be first in the door" at a reconciliation. Does that mean he was not given the same chance to come clean as Hincapie etc were?

USADA gave Armstrong the opportunity to co-operate but he declined and launched legal action. In the OW interview Armstrong says if he had his time again he would have confessed to USADA rather than fought (and lied).

Yes, there was a lot of aovoiding the question, refusing to discuss other people, and obvious lies etc. I don't know how it is possible to have 'no topic off limits' and not even mention Johann's name.

Still, I thought there was more of a confession in the first minute than I actually expected during the whole thing. Here is the transcript of the opening yes/no questions:

Oprah: Did you ever take banned substances to enhance your cycling performance?

Lance Armstrong: Yes

Oprah: Was one of those banned substances EPO?

Lance Armstrong: Yes

Oprah: Did you ever blood-dope, or use blood transfusions to enhance your cycling performance?

Lance Armstrong: Yes

Oprah: Did you ever used other banned substances like cortisones, testosterone, or human growth hormone?

Lance Armstrong: Yes

Oprah: In all seven of your Tour de France victories, did you ever take banned substances or blood- dope?

Lance Armstrong: Yes

I actually doubted that LA would EVER answer any of these questions truthfully.

gretaboy wrote:No we are only getting the answers Lance wants us to have...this all scripted to get him back competing

I hear you, though it is the first time that were are hearing an admission - previously is was unnamed sources and unconfirmed.

It is hard to believe that he didn't pressure other riders to dope.

Indeed it is. Besides, he did and it'd been documented by USADA and others with sworn testimony including from people who had no axe to grind or who could have quite safely said nothing.

He was free to dispute those testimonies by going under oath himself. Probably still could. Risk perjury though.

Hard to argue against the sheer number willing to testify against him. Read what is out there and you get the idea that he made lots of enemies, many being of people who did not want to dope but did anyway. Some did not. And some were not riders and so never had to but tell how the culture and mores came from on high. Lance being high.

Interested in hearing the enablers, many of who are still in the sport.

Especially want to hear the roles of Verbruggen, McQuaid, the IOC lab in Lusagne, what's-his-name cheif of US Postal, other medics.While many believed that it was a witch hunt for Lance when there was no point other than spite to continue after him, USADA and WADA have always been interested in getting more of the enablers. As it is turning out that includes UCI.

gretaboy wrote:he is only doing this because he got caught, too much proof against him

You can pretty much say that about all those caught up in the saga.

Remarkably that is not altogether true. There have been riders and others who were complicit in it who came out of their closet without a need to. People who simply rebelled against what was being done or what they were being required to do and came out when it would have been expedient not to.

There is miles of op-ed being written right now about Armstrong, and I'm not going to add to it, well not yet What I'm thinking about is if and how these events affect our cultural standards of ethics and our view of the value of truth. If you can absolve yourself of past crimes by putting on some showbiz sparkle, 'fessing up while lookin' good, and then get on with your life with a smirk, dusting your hands with a 'job done' attitude as Lance seems intent on doing (and we've seen plenty of similarly high flying corporate mea culpas in recent years), does that not somehow reduce the implied seriousness of the fact that you treated the truth with such disregard?

Clayton M Christensen, one of the world's leading thinkers on innovation said: 'It's easier to hold to your principles 100% of the time. The boundary - your own personal moral line - is powerful if you don't cross it; if you have justified doing so once, there's nothing to stop you doing it again. Decide what you stand for and then stand for it all the time.'

It's a bit like the kids story, every time you cuss a fairy dies. Well, every time a high profile person gets away with stuff the rest of us would go to jail for, does the value of truth not die a little?

And if we end up in a society where truth is no longer important, our moral corruption leads us ... where....

She's always made good sound bites... But then she is a women who has stuck to her guns from day one... And LA has crucified her since day one... No surprise she is so deeply embittered, after all they were some of his "dearest" friends at the time he asked them to join him in that doctors consultation.

toolonglegs wrote:She's always made good sound bites... But then she is a women who has stuck to her guns from day one... And LA has crucified her since day one... No surprise she is so deeply embittered, after all they were some of his "dearest" friends at the time he asked them to join him in that doctors consultation.

It's like a divorce proceeding where each wants to tear a piece of the other. Not nice.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.